placed before this House at the beginning of last Session showed that the total number of estates dealt with during the year 1877-8 was 40,906. Of that number 13,749, or one-third, were estates under £300 each, and the total amount of duty levied on them was £48,831. Now, the average amount of duty paid by these small estates, I find, was almost 2 per cent on the whole. The same Return shows that estates of £30,000 each and upwards paid only something less than 1 per cent. But to these per centages must be added the charge on the estates caused by the duty. I find that the average sum paid by the estates under £300 was no more than £3 10s. each; but anyone who has any experience of the expenses in such matters, will be of opinion that the legal expenses involved by the payment of this £3 10s. were very likely nearly twice that amount. Therefore, it will be seen that these small estates had to pay 2 per cent probate duty, and further legal expenses of between 2 and 4 per cent in making up the statements required with the payment of the duty. The hon. Member who has just addressed the House has referred to the large expenditure which might be saved at Somerset House if these duties were simplified. I venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with this subject, that estates under £300 might be altogether exempted from duty. I venture to think that in so doing the Revenue would suffer very little loss, because, as I have already mentioned, one-third of the whole of the estates consists of the smaller estates under £300, and these must necessarily involve a very large proportion of the work at Somerset House. I think that estates of deceased persons of less than £300 per annum might fairly be considered to correspond with an income of £150 a-year, and ought to be exempted from probate duty, as the small incomes are exempted from Income Tax. For reasons of economy as well as of equality, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety of exempting estates under £300. I hope that the very able and lucid speech which my hon. Friend has addressed to the House will be productive of a very satisfactory division, should one be necessary, and that the House will, by a large majority, strengthen the hands

of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with this subject in his next year's Budget.

MR. GREGORY, in rising to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "expedient" to the end of the Motion, in order to insert the words

"To reconsider and revise the progressive

rates of Probate and Administration Duty, and to afford greater facilities for the assessment and settlement of Legacy and Sucession Duties upon future or contingent events, and for the relief of executors, administrators, and trustees in respect of the same;"

said, he concurred with the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) so far as progressive rates were concerned; they were unequal in their operation, and objectionable in their assessment, large estates paying less in proportion than small ones; but his hon. Friend went further than this, and proposed to assimilate the duties on probates and administrations. He, on the other hand, thought there should be some difference between the two. The making of a will was an imperative duty; and if a man choose to leave his property to the disposition of the law, he did not see why those who benefited by the administration of the law should not pay something for it. With regard to legacies, the proposal of his hon. Friend amounted to this-he would equalize the duties on all legacies, and charge the whole duty on the general estate. All parties were to be assessed to the same duty in respect of the bounties they took under a will, but he thought it was a natural and just principle to regulate the duty according to the consanguinity of the beneficiary. His hon. Friend was driven to this dilemma, either to charge the whole duty on the residuary estate, or to apportion it among the legatees. As to the proposition that a testator himself should regulate the portion of duty to be paid by each legatee, it would impose a duty on a testator which would very seldom be performed; but he thought that further facilities should be afforded for the payment of legacy duties and for discharging executors and trustees in all cases in which one party was entitled for life and another in remainder. It might be said that in cases where the duties would be assessed at different rates, some hardship would accrue to the remainderman in the duty being levied on the whole legacy in the first

MR. GREGORY, in rising to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "expedient" to the end of the Motion, in order to insert the words

rates of Probate and Administration Duty, and
"To reconsider and revise the progressive

to afford greater facilities for the assessment and
settlement of Legacy and Sucession Duties upon
future or contingent events, and for the relief
spect of the same;"
of executors, administrators, and trustees in re-

placed before this House at the begin- | of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in ning of last Session showed that the dealing with this subject in his next total number of estates dealt with during year's Budget. the year 1877-8 was 40,906. Of that number 13,749, or one-third, were estates under £300 each, and the total amount of duty levied on them was £48,831. Now, the average amount of duty paid by these small estates, I find, was almost 2 per cent on the whole. The same Return shows that estates of £30,000 each and upwards paid only something less than 1 per cent. But to these per centages must be added the charge on the estates caused by the duty. I find that the average sum paid by the estates under £300 was no more than £3 10s. each; but anyone who has any experience of the expenses in such matters, will be of opinion that the legal expenses involved by the payment of this £3 108. were very likely nearly twice that amount. Therefore, it will be seen that these small estates had to pay 2 per cent probate duty, and further legal expenses of between 2 and 4 per cent in making up the statements required with the payment of the duty. The hon. Member who has just addressed the House has referred to the large expenditure which might be saved at Somerset House if these duties were simplified. I venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with this subject, that estates under £300 might be altogether exempted from duty. I venture to think that in so doing the Revenue would suffer very little loss, because, as I have already mentioned, one-third of the whole of the estates consists of the smaller estates under £300, and these must necessarily involve a very large proportion of the work at Somerset House. I think that estates of deceased persons of less than £300 per annum might fairly be considered to correspond with an income of £150 a-year, and ought to be exempted from probate duty, as the small incomes are exempted from Income Tax. For reasons of economy as well as of equality, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety of exempting estates under £300. I hope that the very able and lucid speech which my hon. Friend has addressed to the House will be productive of a very satisfactory division, should one be necessary, and that the House will, by a large majority, strengthen the hands

said, he concurred with the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) so far as progressive rates were concerned; they were unequal in their operation, and objectionable in their assessment, large estates paying less in proportion than small ones; but his hon. Friend went further than this, and proposed to assimilate the duties on probates and administrations. He, on the other hand, thought there should be some difference between the two. The making of a will was an imperative duty; and if a man choose to leave his property to the disposition of the law, he did not see why those who benefited by the administration of the law should not pay something for it. With regard to legacies, the proposal of his hon. Friend amounted to this-he would equalize the duties on all legacies, and charge the whole duty on the general estate. All parties were to be assessed to the same duty in respect of the bounties they took under a will, but he thought it was a natural and just principle to regulate the duty according to the consanguinity of the beneficiary. His hon. Friend was driven to this dilemma, either to charge the whole duty on the residuary estate, or to apportion it among the legatees. As to the proposition that a testator himself should regulate the portion of duty to be paid by each legatee, it would impose a duty on a testator which would very seldom be performed; but he thought that further facilities should be afforded for the payment of legacy duties and for discharging executors and trustees in all cases in which one party was entitled for life and another in remainder. It might be said that in cases where the duties would be assessed at different rates, some hardship would accrue to the remainderman in the duty being levied on the whole legacy in the first

instance, but he believed that this would | large a duty were imposed on children. be so small in effect as to be inappre- who were the immediate objects of the ciable. Again, he thought, executors or testator's bounty and care, parents would trustees should have the power of giving be induced to make provision for them benotice to the Inland Revenue Office that fore death, and would thereby evade paythey were about to distribute the funds ment of the percentage to the State. As a in their hands, and require the Office if matter of fact, that happened rather frethey had any claim upon such funds, quently, even with the existing low duties. to make it within a limited time, and if He believed that the legacy duty could the Office did not make such claim, that the not be increased without detriment to trustees or executors should be discharged. the State, and that, as it stood, it was Again, with regard to succession duties, based on fair principles, of which the a case had occurred in which the advantages outweighed those of the trustees had elected to pay the succes- fixed duty which had been suggested. sion duties by instalments, but, unfor- No doubt, the present system caused tunately, one of them forgot to pay the considerable expense; but he had never last instalment. The thing was undis- heard of any injustice done in the whole covered for years; but when the owner great establishment of Somerset House. came into succession, he was called upon He believed the differential duty was to pay all the instalments with interest better for the public than a fixed duty at 4 per cent for 14 years. In a case of would be, inasmuch as it did not offer that kind, he thought that the principal any temptations to the Chancellor of the alone ought to be recoverable. If the Exchequer to levy those increases which changes he had suggested were made, he the hon. Member seemed to think dedid not think any more was required. sirable. The total value of personal He begged to move the Amendment of property had largely increased of late which he had given Notice. years, till it now amounted to 80 per cent of the whole. That was a circumstance which seemed to have escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). It was surprising that only the remaining 20 per cent was liable to contribute to local taxation. That fact was an answer to many of the arguments they had heard; and, taking it together with other facts, he had no difficulty in giving his vote against the Resolution.

Amendment proposed,

MR. GOLDNEY, in seconding the Amendment, said, he agreed with his hon. Friend that, on the whole, the present law worked very well, and was a just law. It was a law which prevailed in all civilized States, and was first adopted in this country under William III., when it was brought from Holland. In 1780, the tax was simply 1 per cent upon legacies above £100; in 1783, it was increased to 2 per cent; and in 1789, to 3 per cent. In 1796, a proposition was brought before the House to increase the duties; and a very long debate followed. On a division, as to whether real estate should be brought under the same rule as personal estate, the numbers were equal, and the Speaker gave his casting-vote against the proposition, so that there might be further time for consideration, and the subject dropped. In 1805, differential duties were introduced; and in 1815, it was established that children who had a natural claim should pay a smaller amount than those who had not the same natural claim. It was manifestly unjust, that those who had a natural right to be maintained should pay the same duty as those who had no such right. The argument in the case of the pro-and that with respect to the Probate, Legacy "To move to add to Mr. Dodd's Motionbate and succession duties were similar. and Succession Duties real estate should be Again, it might be argued, that if too placed on the same footing as personal estate."'

Mr. Gregory

To leave out from the word "expedient" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "to reconsider and revise the progressive to afford greater facilities for the assessment rates of Probate and Administration Duty, and and settlement of Legacy and Succession Duties upon future or contingent events, and for the relief of executors, administrators, and trustees in respect of the same.”—(Mr. Gregory.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. BAXTER said, he wished to say a very few words with regard to the Notice which he had placed on the Paper, and which was as follows:

The first remark he would make was to | should, therefore, give his support to to express his surprise at the total in- the Motion of his hon. Friend the Memconsistency between our practice in re- ber for Stockton. But he was most gard to these duties and our practice desirous of saying that he did not with regard to other taxation. With think the House of Commons would be regard to other taxation there was a satisfied with stopping here. He claimed, practice, which he very much regretted in the interests of justice, that real to see, of exempting the lower portion heritable property should be placed on of the middle classes from taxation. precisely the same footing, with regard This practice was, he considered, car- to these duties, as property which was ried very much further than the benefit moveable. He was afraid that the counof the State justified. The principle try-the electors-were not sufficiently adopted in the case of the Income Tax aware of the gross inequality of the was directly opposite to the principle law in this respect. He had an abstract which they were now discussing with of the Parliamentary Return, issued in regard to the duties touched upon in February, 1878, for the year 1876-7, the Motion. There was another singu- from which he found that on personal larity with regard to the succession or moveable estates the probate or induties, and that was that no defence of ventory duty was £2,260,176, and legacy any kind, good, bad, or indifferent, had duty £2,846,054, making together ever been made from the Treasury £5,107,130; whilst the succession duty Bench by any Chancellor of the Exche- on real or heritable estates was only quer of the anomalies or inequalities so £849,340, making a difference of ably pointed out by his hon. Friend £4,257,700. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). the Member for Greenwich calculated, There had been some defences made from some years ago, that if the real property time to time by some independent Gen- were taxed it would add £2,000,000 to tlemen; but it was a remarkable thing the Exchequer; but the Conservative that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Party insisted that it would involve a speaking with authority, had never been tax of a much greater extent, and Lord able to defend these duties. It appeared Cairns said that the landed property of to him that it was utterly impossible to the country, if that alteration were justify the taxing of small successions made, would pay £8,000,000 a-year. at a higher rate than large ones, and He had gone into a calculation himself, the taxing of testate and intestate estates but, at that late hour of the night, would at different charges, and the taxing of not trouble the House with it. It would real estate where it was used for the be sufficient for him to say that he purposes of trade, whilst, where it was thought any person who had studied not used for the purposes of trade it got this subject thoroughly must come to off scot free. These anomalies and in- the conclusion that the exemption of equalities in the present system had not landed property from these duties cost only been frequently pointed out, but the country not less than £4,000,000 they had been proved to demonstration a-year. He had never been able to see time and again in that House. To his why they should not be placed on the mind, it was most surprising that no same footing, and every great financial Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever authority, who had written and spoken had the courage to grapple with this on this subject, took the same view. matter; and the more especially so be- Many years ago, Mr. Gwynne, the cause it was perfectly evident that any Comptroller of the Duties, addressing honest, logical attempt to remove these the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, anomalies and put on a uniform duty, as said— proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, would add, he believed, something like £1,000,000 sterling to the Revenue of the country. The present system appeared to him to be radically defective, and he thought it was no use attempting to patch it up in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He

"It is a matter of surprise that the legacy and probate duties have not yet been extended to real as well as personal estate. Clearly, there is no distinction between them which on any sound principle of finance should exempt one description of property and not the other." In Mr. M'Culloch's article on taxation in The Edinburgh Review for 1860, he read as follows: